Ken Seidelmann, John Seago, and I addressed this in our papers and in
the recent editorial in Space News.
The Y2K effort was necessary. Everyone knew that we could not just
watch what might happen and catch up afterwards. In the case of leap
seconds, no one knows what the real consequences might
In message <3b33e89c51d2de44be2f0c757c656c8809cda...@mail02.stk.com>, "Finklema
n, Dave" writes:
>We can just let things be as they have been for nearly 40 years.
Sure, no argument from here: Please shut down your Internet connection
and any cell-phones you might have, and don't use them ever a
: Leap Second Discussion List
Reply-To: Leap Second Discussion List
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Leap Sec vs Y2K
In message <3b33e89c51d2de44be2f0c757c656c8809cda...@mail02.stk.com>, "Finklema
n, Dave" writes:
>We can just let things be as they have been for nearly 40 years.
Sure, no
In message <211674-1292007095-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-4042
478...@bda950.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>, p...@2038bug.com writes:
>
>> very much need to know and agree what time it is.
>
>Yes but mostly only to an accuracy of minutes.
Pray tell what authority you have for this prono
On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <3b33e89c51d2de44be2f0c757c656c8809cda...@mail02.stk.com>,
> "Finklema
> n, Dave" writes:
>
>> We can just let things be as they have been for nearly 40 years.
>
> Sure, no argument from here: Please shut down your Internet c
> Pray tell what authority you have for this pronouncement ?
I am totally confused where you got this idea that most of the worlds
servers tick over in sync, like a "We Will Rock You" resitation at
Wembly stadium. In fact it is more like the applause at the end of a
football game.
On my desk are
In message <1292020824.24370.43.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
>> Pray tell what authority you have for this pronouncement ?
>
>I am totally confused where you got this idea that most of the worlds
>servers tick over in sync, [...]
Ahh, this "misconception" is probably based on the fact tha
in future, please read my email before you reply.
The fact that you INSIST that our timestamps being seconds or minutes
off MUST be a problem for my company,
WHEREAS it is definitively NOT a problem, is perplexing to me.
>
> Ohh, so you have heard of NTP, but have zero clue about how to
> conf
ssion List
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Leap Sec vs Y2K
in future, please read my email before you reply.
The fact that you INSIST that our timestamps being seconds or minutes off MUST
be a problem for my company,
WHEREAS it is definitively NOT a problem, is perplexing to me.
Ohh, s
On 11 Dec 2010 at 0:40, Paul Sheer wrote:
> At the ISP I consult for there are about 20 servers serving 60,000
> customers. Their clocks routinely go out of sync and it doesn't affect
> service.
I have a script that dumps the timestamps of each of a number of
servers where I work; this is a rece
>>
>
> Then you must also pity 99.999% of the software users on the planet all of
> which are not affected by missing NTP configurations.
Really? OSX ships with a functional NTP configuration, enabled by default, as
do most Apple odds and ends (Airports, particularly). In order to have an O
In message <4d02faf1.18277.14639...@dan.tobias.name>, "Daniel R. Tobias" writes
:
>On 11 Dec 2010 at 0:40, Paul Sheer wrote:
>
>> At the ISP I consult for there are about 20 servers serving 60,000
>> customers. Their clocks routinely go out of sync and it doesn't affect
>> service.
>
>I have a scri
On Sat 2010-12-11T08:18:54 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> >I have a script that dumps the timestamps of each of a number of
> >servers where I work; this is a recent result:
Those clocks span about 10 seconds.
> Why are you not running NTP properly ?
That question is not fair without furt
> I'm surprised by your claim that Telcos don't do NTP, [...]
I'm sure many do.
My point is that, if one's starting premise is that most systems in the
world *require* second-accurate syncronization, this is simply untrue.
In fact most work perfectly well even when they drift by minutes,
and a
On 11 Dec 2010, at 16:23, Paul Sheer wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised by your claim that Telcos don't do NTP, [...]
>
> I'm sure many do.
>
> My point is that, if one's starting premise is that most systems in the
> world *require* second-accurate syncronization, this is simply untrue.
>
> In fact m
On 12/11/2010 09:23, Paul Sheer wrote:
I'm surprised by your claim that Telcos don't do NTP, [...]
I'm sure many do.
My point is that, if one's starting premise is that most systems in the
world *require* second-accurate syncronization, this is simply untrue.
In fact most work perfectly well
>
> > This is orders of magnitude more error than any leap second.
>
> One problem with the "kinda works" attitude is that is a barrier to
> entry for people whose systems need to work correctly to a much higher
>
I agree: the "kinda works" attitude is indeed such a barrier.
However the "
In message <1292102703.24926.29.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
>Apply this principle as follows: ACCEPT that there are servers
>and desktops all over the world are MISCONFIGURED and do NOT
>have second-accurate syncronization, and are NEVER going to
>have second-accurate syncronization.
Ohh
On 2010-12-11, at 22:25, Paul Sheer wrote:
> Apply this principle as follows: ACCEPT that there are servers
> and desktops all over the world are MISCONFIGURED and do NOT
> have second-accurate syncronization, and are NEVER going to
> have second-accurate syncronization.
True. If someone doesn't
On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 22:35 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <1292102703.24926.29.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
>
> >Apply this principle as follows: ACCEPT that there are servers
> >and desktops all over the world are MISCONFIGURED and do NOT
> >have second-accurate syncronizat
On Dec 11, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> So the magnitude of this "kinda works" degrades as the time synchronization
> between systems gets worse.
"Kinda works" - you could be describing UTC redefined without leap seconds :-)
Rob
___
LEAPSECS
In message <1292109115.24926.42.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
>On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 22:35 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> But that does not allow us to ignore the servers which are
>> synchronized and which need to be synchronized to work.
>
>I disagree. It very much allows us to ignore
>
> This is because by-and-large software is written for the "lowest
> common denominator".
I am reminded of Spinal Tap's "We're cancelled in Boston, but don't worry, it's
not a big college town". Examples of protocols that get distinctly tetchy in
the face of poor clock synch are, as has alr
On 12/11/2010 17:18, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message<1292109115.24926.42.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 22:35 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
But that does not allow us to ignore the servers which are
synchronized and which need to be synchronized to work.
I dis
>
> Which bit of "need" don't you understand ?
>
> Are you happy with the ATC servers used to land your plane being
> "within some minutes" of each other ?
There are two choices:
A. the software was written to be safe assuming precise time
syncronization AND the time was reliably and precisel
On Dec 11, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> ATC systems being unsynchronized means that planes crash; clearly a situation
> we want to avoid.
Presumably they do have layers on layers of error handling built in, as well as
contingent procedures - perhaps even traditional sextant navigation
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 01:20 +, Ian Batten wrote:
> >
> > This is because by-and-large software is written for the "lowest
> > common denominator".
>
> NFS (the computing glue of the nineties) and Kerberos/AD
> (the computing glue of the noughties). [...]
please understand that I am only tr
In message <1292118117.24926.52.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
>I choose the solution that makes my flight the cheepest.
It is not a matter of flight being cheap or expensive.
If you only synchronize computer "on the order of minutes" the modern
airport ceases to function as such.
During
In message <1292119375.24926.67.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
>On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 01:20 +, Ian Batten wrote:
>indeed with these protocols, can I guess that,
>
>1. syncronization is only required to within a couple of seconds
>2. syncronization is only required between client and serv
In message <730779e5-5e6b-4016-9be3-bacd9bb4a...@noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>On Dec 11, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>> ATC systems being unsynchronized means that planes crash; clearly a
>> situation we want to avoid.
>
>Presumably they do have layers on layers of error handling buil
On Dec 12, 2010, at 2:27 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> 5. Canibalism is a problem the Navy has mostly under control.
It is well known that it is the RAF who now suffer the largest casualties in
this area.
I've eaten some airplane meals that might lead one to consider the
possibility...
_
And is this 1000km radius precisely syncronized to all other 1000km
radii around all airports in the world?
No it need not be. I'm guessing that some may not even use NTP at all -
or even be connected to the Internet to be able to use NTP.
You are trying to paint an illusion that all clocks in
In message <1292178523.24926.79.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
>And is this 1000km radius precisely syncronized to all other 1000km
>radii around all airports in the world?
No, I said:
"Radar stitching requires 3msec synchronization and
timestamping, throughout the entire a
On 12/12/2010 11:28, Paul Sheer wrote:
And is this 1000km radius precisely syncronized to all other 1000km
radii around all airports in the world?
No it need not be. I'm guessing that some may not even use NTP at all
- or even be connected to the Internet to be able to use NTP.
All major ai
> No, I'm trying to point out that you are an ignoranmus in this context
> with your "within some minutes is plenty" blanket statements.
>
If we misinterpret statements as axoims we will always be in a circle of
discussing what the statement excluded.
I am speaking for the 100's of millions of
In message <1292189518.25675.85.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
>I have a strong suspician that if someone put a gun to your head and
>said "Poul-Henning, we are not getting rid of leap seconds, but we are
>telling YOU to make sure those computers don't crash next December" that
>you would fi
Paul Sheer wrote:
> I have a strong suspician that if someone put a gun to your head and
> said "Poul-Henning, we are not getting rid of leap seconds, but we are
> telling YOU to make sure those computers don't crash next December" that
> you would find that Poul-Henning suddenly started asking a
A gentle reminder from your host -- please keep this discussion
list somewhat technical. Every now and then it gets out of hand.
/tvb
http://www.LeapSecond.com
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/
On Dec 12, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> The question is: Are the minor inconvenience astronomers will
> suffer, by having to subscribe to a DUT distribution service, a
> bigger issue than the money and lives leap seconds will cost.
I'd say a more basic question is that if the pro
On 12/12/2010 18:11, Rob Seaman wrote:
On Dec 12, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
If Geophysicist announced leap seconds with at least 10 years
firm notice, 90% of the problems they cause would be eliminated
by the normal software update cycle.
As you say, there are more than one po
On Sun 2010-12-12T20:48:48 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
[regarding a 10 year advance predicion of leaps]
> It does seem like a reasonable compromise between different needs. It
> would preserve the low-precision users (like PHP) to be more or less as
> accurate as they are today without modificat
On Dec 11, 2010, at 12:36 PM, Ian Batten wrote:
Well, except for Active Directory, which sets an upper bound of five
minutes on the maximum error. In practice, an AD deployment in
which clocks were allowed to drift apart by minutes would behave
very badly, so the typical target is less th
42 matches
Mail list logo
